CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. ADJ6884562
Regular
Oct 04, 2010

ERIC KRUSE vs. CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, Permissibly Self-Insured

This case concerns whether a 15% reduction in permanent disability indemnity applies when an employer offers an injured employee regular work after their condition is permanent and stationary. The applicant, a parking enforcement officer, sustained a neck and elbow injury and was temporarily disabled before returning to his regular job. The employer offered regular work after the applicant's condition became permanent and stationary, but the applicant had already returned to his normal duties. The majority found that since there was no indication of permanent disability prior to the employer's offer, all permanent indemnity was payable after the offer, entitling the employer to the reduction. However, a dissenting commissioner argued that the offer lacked practical meaning as the applicant had already returned to work and that no weekly payments remained after the offer to be reduced.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardEric KruseCity of San Rafaelparking enforcement officerindustrial injuryneck injuryright elbow injurytemporary total disabilitypermanent and stationaryoffer of regular work
References
0
Case No. ADJ7502978
Regular
Feb 25, 2011

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ vs. CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES

This case involves a workers' compensation claim for a left knee injury where the defendant sought reconsideration of a prior award. The core dispute was the date the applicant received a Notice of Offer of Regular Work, which impacts permanent disability benefits. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration because the trial judge mistakenly believed the notice was issued in 2010, not 2008. Finding the notice was timely issued within the statutory timeframe, the WCAB rescinded the prior award. The matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision.

Permanent DisabilityNotice of Offer of Regular WorkLabor Code Section 4658(d)Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardQualified Medical EvaluatorTreating PhysicianMaximum Medical ImprovementStipulationAward
References
0
Case No. ADJ739750 (FRE 0217695) ADJ3422922 (FRE 0217696) ADJ4620151 (FRE 0217213)
Regular
Sep 23, 2010

JERRY P. WILLIAMS vs. GOLDEN STATE VINTNERS and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) initially issued a Notice of Intention to Impose Sanctions against State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) for failing to provide a computer printout of benefits. SCIF objected, asserting the printout was available at a prior Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) with a former attorney. Although the printout was not explicitly mentioned in the MSC pre-trial statement or offered at trial, the WCAB accepted SCIF's representation of its availability. Consequently, finding no willful failure to comply with a regulatory obligation, the WCAB dismissed the Notice of Intention to Impose Sanctions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardNotice of Intention To Impose SanctionsWCAB Rule 10607computer printout of benefitsMandatory Settlement Conference (MSC)Declaration of Desiree A. Mercadopre-trial conference statementproposed exhibitsEAMSwillful failure to comply
References
0
Case No. ADJ9008079
Regular
Aug 31, 2015

CHAD CURRY vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION, legally uninsured; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES, adjusting agency

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding a prior award of 25% permanent disability to the applicant. The defendant argued for a 15% reduction in weekly payments based on an alleged offer of regular work, but failed to present evidence of this offer or properly raise the issue during trial. The Board found no evidence in the record of the required notice being sent or admitted, and the defendant did not list this issue in the pre-trial conference statement. Therefore, the Board concluded the defendant failed to support its claim for a reduction in benefits.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent Disability IndemnityNotice of Offer of Regular WorkLabor Code Section 4658(d)(3)(A)Weekly Permanent Disability IndemnityPre-Trial Conference StatementBontempoCity of Sebastopol v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Braga
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Sarlo v. Antona Trucking Co.

The State Insurance Fund appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision from December 1, 1981, which found it liable due to an improper cancellation of an employer's policy. The Board ruled the cancellation failed to comply with Workers’ Compensation Law § 54(5), which requires certified or registered mail with return receipt for notice of cancellation. The State Insurance Fund only provided a mailing manifest, lacking proof that a cancellation notice was actually sent, and offered no evidence of office practice to invoke a presumption of regularity. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, agreeing that strict statutory conformity is necessary for policy cancellation, and awarded costs to the Uninsured Employers’ Fund.

Workers' CompensationInsurance Policy CancellationNotice RequirementsCertified MailReturn Receipt RequestedStatutory CompliancePresumption of RegularityMailing ManifestEmployer LiabilityAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. ADJ6807374, ADJ6807475
Regular
Apr 25, 2011

CIIRISTINE OSTRANDER vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES/SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

This case involves an employer's failure to provide an injured employee with timely notice of modified or alternative work following a determination of permanent and stationary status. While the employee eventually returned to her regular duties, the employer did not formally offer such positions within the 60-day window mandated by Labor Code section 4658(d)(2). Consequently, the employer is not entitled to a 15% decrease in permanent disability payments. However, the Appeals Board found that awarding the employee a 15% increase would elevate form over substance, given the employee's early return to regular work. Therefore, the Board rescinded the original award of a 15% increase and modified the decision to state there is no 15% adjustment under Labor Code section 4658(d).

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardChristine OstranderCounty of Los Angeles/Sheriff's Departmentindustrial injuryrespiratory systemasthmainternal diseasepermanent disabilitypermanent and stationary (P&S) dateLabor Code section 4658(d)
References
2
Case No. ADJ9346293
Significant
Jan 13, 2020

ANTHONY DENNIS vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA – DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION INMATE CLAIMS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board issued a Notice of Intention to find Administrative Director Rule 10133.54 invalid, asserting it oversteps the Administrative Director's authority and infringes upon the WCAB's exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes over supplemental job displacement benefits (SJDB). The Board also intends to hold that an employer must make a bona fide offer of work to avoid liability for an SJDB voucher.

Supplemental Job Displacement BenefitSJDB voucherAdministrative DirectorAD Rule 10133.54Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCABexclusive jurisdictionstatutory authoritybona fide offerregular work
References
33
Case No. ADJ9346293
En Banc
Jan 13, 2020

ANTHONY DENNIS vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA – DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION INMATE CLAIMS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) issued a Notice of Intention to hold that Administrative Director (AD) Rule 10133.54 is invalid. The WCAB reasoned that the rule exceeds the AD's statutory authority and improperly restricts the WCAB's exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes over supplemental job displacement benefits (SJDB). The board also intends to affirm its prior decision that an employer must make a bona fide offer of work to an injured employee to be exempt from providing an SJDB voucher.

AD Rule 10133.54Supplemental Job Displacement BenefitBona Fide OfferExclusive JurisdictionAdministrative DirectorWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardInmate LaborerStatutory AuthorityEn Banc DecisionReconsideration
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 2011

Casale v. City of New York

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially granted petitioners' motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim. However, the appellate court unanimously reversed this decision, finding that the lower court improvidently exercised its discretion. Petitioners failed to offer a reasonable excuse for the delay, lacking medical evidence to support claims of physical incapacity and demonstrating ignorance of the law. Furthermore, an accident report from Turner Construction Company was deemed insufficient to provide the City with actual knowledge of the claim, as Turner was not proven to be an agent of the City, and the report did not link the incident to a claim against the City. The petitioners also did not rebut the inference of prejudice arising from their eight-month delay.

Late Notice of ClaimGeneral Municipal LawTimelinessExcuseActual KnowledgeAgencyPrejudiceAppellate DivisionNew York LawMunicipal Liability
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Angulo v. City of New York

In a personal injury action, the defendant City of New York appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County. The original order denied the City's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to timely serve a notice of claim and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion to deem his notice of claim timely served nunc pro tunc. The plaintiff, injured in May 2005, served his notice of claim in August 2005, which the City rejected as untimely. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's order, granting the City's motion to dismiss the complaint and denying the plaintiff's cross-motion. The court held that timely service of a notice of claim is a condition precedent to suing the City and that the plaintiff failed to make a timely application for leave to serve a late notice of claim. Furthermore, the court ruled that the plaintiff could not rely on the workers' compensation carrier's notice of claim.

Personal InjuryNotice of ClaimTimelinessCondition PrecedentCPLR 3211(a)(7)General Municipal Law § 50-eDismissal of ComplaintLate Notice of ClaimNunc Pro TuncWorkers' Compensation Carrier
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 3,783 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational